Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2017 13:00:33 GMT
I think it has. While the story and acting is still good, the visuals and special effects are terrible and the film looks too much like a 1990's film, even though it came out in 2002. Even back in 2002, nobody thought the action and special effects in the film were good. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and even Harry Potter to an extent were so much more innovative and groundbreaking in the Early 2000's when it came to action, visuals and special effects.
It's the reason why the impact of the film has diminished with time for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Nov 25, 2017 13:08:01 GMT
it aged terribly for me. i might have a better time watching Spiderman 3 to be honest
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2017 13:27:21 GMT
Maybe it has but so what if it has ?
|
|
hemlin
Freshman
@hemlin
Posts: 82
 
|
Post by hemlin on Nov 25, 2017 15:58:30 GMT
Spider-Man 2 is held up to be the best of the trilogy. After a recent rewatch, I found some thematic elements to be quite heavy handed and repetitive. Hammering home the 'power and responsibility' mantra until it becomes redundant. The Peter Parker we see here feels dour and a little less likeable than his current incarnation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Nov 25, 2017 16:19:25 GMT
No, it's still a great movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Nov 25, 2017 16:31:44 GMT
I agree with sdrew13163 , I too think it's still a great movie... |
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 25, 2017 17:06:02 GMT
Not at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 25, 2017 18:35:50 GMT
No, it's fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Nov 25, 2017 18:50:50 GMT
I thought it aged terribly in 2002.
It was a bad version of the origin, and the cg was bad even in 2002.
That mighty morphin Green Goblin costume...
Peter Parker telling Mary Jane he cried like a baby when seeing her in a school play.
Ditko would be rolling in his grave if he wasn't alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Nov 26, 2017 1:09:42 GMT
It's a good movie, though not without its flaws. The effects are very dated, but the narrative and performances ensure that it's still a solid watch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2017 1:35:37 GMT
No, I think it has aged better than Spider-Man 2 and is today the best Spider-Man film.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 26, 2017 7:44:38 GMT
It's alright, B+
To be honest, I thought S2 aged it more than time itself.
S1 still earns credit for bringing the genre back to the Superman '78 tone, away from Batman & X-Men.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Nov 26, 2017 7:59:33 GMT
I think it has. While the story and acting is still good, the visuals and special effects are terrible and the film looks too much like a 1990's film, even though it came out in 2002. Even back in 2002, nobody thought the action and special effects in the film were good. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and even Harry Potter to an extent were so much more innovative and groundbreaking in the Early 2000's when it came to action, visuals and special effects. It's the reason why the impact of the film has diminished with time for me. It was never a good movie. You're just old enough to notice now. |
|
|
|
Post by skribb on Nov 26, 2017 22:48:22 GMT
Honestly it's kinda blah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Nov 26, 2017 23:07:16 GMT
The visual effects haven't held up. Some of the dialogue was corny ("It's you who's out, Gobby. Out of your mind!"), but the movie has aged like fine wine in my opinion. For example, Spider-Man's fight with the Green Goblin in the alley hasn't lost its power. It's still brutally dark and intense.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Nov 26, 2017 23:30:16 GMT
I can't really say as it's been many years since i last seen it and i won't bother re-watching it either as it's pretty safe for me to say i just don't get into that character (even though i recognize Spider-Man is quite well known/popular etc in the super hero world).
but just from memory... i think the Tobey Maquire movies beat the more recent ones. for the record... that comment is based on the only other Spider-Man movie i have seen outside of the Tobey Maguire movies which is the one from 2012.
with all of that said... i think had i liked the general Spider-Man character more i would probably like the 2002 movie and the rest of the Tobey Maguire ones etc.
Well it's only a few years or so of time which is nothing and sorta goes along with my general perception in that...
i always kinda felt that decades kinda blend into each other a bit. like some of the early 1980's movies might still have a bit of a 1970's feel/style and the early 1990's might still have a bit of 1980's feel/style and so on.
so with a movie from 2002 it's not much into the 2000's decade so it's not a stretch for them to still feel like 1990's movies on some level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Nov 28, 2017 19:51:53 GMT
The first two are still the best Spider-Man films we've gotten - so no.
They can't be topped for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Nov 28, 2017 20:15:01 GMT
This is the best Spider Man...  Seriously though, I still think the Tobey Maguire Spider Mans were the best. I thought it was too soon to reboot in 2012 and then again!?!?!?! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 6:44:38 GMT
No. Looking back on the 'Spider-Man' movies that were made in the late 70s (which have REALLY aged and look silly) I don't think it has and I prefer 'Spider-Man (2002)' over most of the other 'Spider-Man' movies. 
|
|
|
|
Post by plasma on Nov 29, 2017 6:52:22 GMT
Aside from early CGI, I still think it's a really good origin story. I've seen it several times too. In fact rewatching it months ago made me realize I miss Raimi. He needs to make another film soon.
|
|
